Mediation in Ayodhya desirable, ruling soon: SC

“We cannot undo history. But we can undo this dispute,” a five-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.

The bench said that instead one mediator, there could be a panel of mediators to thrash out the issue.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that mediation was “desirable” to sort out the contentious Ayodhya issue given its bitter history and its wide-ranging implications on the body polity even though the Hindu parties to the case were unwilling, but stopped short of passing an order to this effect.

Instead the court said that it would rule on this “very shortly”. “We cannot undo history. But we can undo this dispute,” a five-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.

Gogoi was sitting alongside Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazir. The bench said that instead one mediator, there could be a panel of mediators to thrash out the issue. “While the process was on it could be confidential.”

Hindus and Muslims have been warring for the land on which the now demolished Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi structure once stood for long now. The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 carved up the land in the ration of 2:1 between the Hindus and the Muslims. Both sides have challenged the ruling. It has been pending in the top court ever since.

The Hindu parties to the case the Nirmohi Akhara, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and the All India Hindu Mahasabha have all expressed their opposition to mediation.

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, who is appearing for Lord Rama, the deity, in the court said that the issue was not suitable for alternate dispute resolution mechanisms. He offered to have a mosque crowd-funded if the Hindus were allowed to build at the site. Uttar Pradesh, through SG Tushar Mehta, also opposed the suggestion.

“It is not advisable or prudent to have mediation,” Mehta said. The Hindu parties argued that it was a matter of faith, religion for the Hindus. “It is not a property dispute,” they said. “There is hence no question of any compromise.” Some lawyers on the Hindu side argued whether any settlement of the mediation would bind all the millions that they claim to represent in the case.

The Muslim parties led by the Sunni Central Wakf Board however was agreeable to the suggestion. He said any settlement would bind all parties to the dispute. Justice Bobde, next in line to be CJI after CJI Gogoi demits office later this year, observed that the court was conscious of the impact of the ruling on the body polity, the gravity of the issue.

“But the law mandates that the court try and heal the minds and hearts,” he said. “Desirability of a negotiated settlement cannot be ignored. Why do you presume that you have to compromise,” he asked the Hindu side.

Dr Subramanian Swamy, who has sought court intervention to enforce his right to worship at Ayodhya, however, insisted that any compromise must be within certain parameters – that all the land belongs to the government and can be given to anyone to construct a temple.